posted Dec-14-2005 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:

Did you ever do a MAF test before you were injured for 3 months. I am just wondering how much progress you made because of MAF considering you were off a while. Would any type of running made you faster even if you included a tempo run in there once per week. The reason I ask is because Tinman who posts on www.run-insight.com says that one should do tempo work year round and it will not affect aerobic base. He also recommends paces termed Critical Velocity which I won't get into. Tinman seems to be a God on letsrun.com and this particular sight and has helped so many people.He really knows his stuff and has done a ton of research and offers free advice.

I guess I am starting to question if it is wise for me to not be doing a tempo run once per week and if MAF training will help me if I only do 20 miles per week???? I think I will give MAF training 3 more weeks which will put me at around 7 weeks - if I don't notice any improvement, I will probably add a tempo run in per week until Spring. I do like the comfort of running at this pace but I don't want to go backward.

---

I could spend an hour responding to this one! However, I'll try to
be succinct. One year ago, when I was wondering why all of
my times were getting worse and worse when I was doing
more and more speedwork (generally track intervals one day
a week and another day either hills or tempo), I read Jimmy's post
which pointed to Hadd's writings (from letsrun.com), indicating
the likelihood that my problem was poor aerobic base, not a lack
of speedwork. I had all of the symptoms, every one of them.
And by the way, I did a lot of speedwork and my times continued
to get worse (although on occasion, I would hit a 5k and cut
3-5 seconds off of a previous time).
I followed 8 weeks of base-building a la Hadd's approach (i.e., < 70% HRmax), which was basically equivalent to 8 weeks of Maffetone
training, but at a little bit higher heart rate. When I started, I had
been running about 50 mpw. My initial pace at 70% was just slower than
12 min/mi. After 8 weeks, it was around 9:40/mile outdoors.
(I stopped at 8 weeks because that's when my race season began).
Not long before I started basebuilding, I ran a PR one mile track
race in just over 6:10, and in the previous few weeks I had run a
2 mile race in 13:26, 5k in 21:3X, and 10k in 47:4X. After the
basebuilding, I ran a mile race (my first afterwards - with absolutely
no hard runs in between at all) in 5:36. Then I ran the same 2 mile
race some weeks later in 12:46, and shortly after, a 5k in 20:39.
Not long after, I did a 10k in 45:21.
I ran races every week or two, all better than I had been doing before
and I generally kept my runs under 70% when I wasn't racing. Most
races were 10k or 15k, with some 5ks mixed, so the majority were
equivalent to tempo runs. A couple of months later, I ran
a marathon in 3:54, still indicating that I have an aerobic problem,
based on more shorter distance races, but 9 minutes better than
my previous best. There's no doubt also that I had lost a lot of my
base after all the racing. I ran about 5 other marathons toward the end of
the year and a 50 miler, followed by a 50k at the beginning of January
(of this year). In February, I entered an endurance study which involved
a vo2max test, followed by three 2 hour treadmill runs at 60% vo2max,
which was 6 mph (on the treadmill). My vo2max measured 54.3,
before I had my slip and fall accident. My heart rate ranged from 144-148 during the treadmill runs at a fixed 10 min/mi (144 is my
current MAF heart rate, so this basically answers your question).
Just at the end of the study was the point of my slip and fall accident,
so the figures above were all while I was still running. So, hopefully
that settles that part of your question. Now, after recovery,
starting back up running in May, I see a 2 hour improvement
at 50 miles, 30 minute improvement in the marathon, and a
2:20 improvement at 10k. All with no hard training, but reasonably
high volume for a training period just over 5 months after not
running at all for 3 months. Maybe there's another way to get
there injury-free, but it would be surprising.

But let me add something else here concerning posts on
letsrun and other places where top racers hang out.
You need to understand that there is a major difference between
brand new runners, "fairly new" runners (1-2 years or so), and
seasoned endurance runners. Most seasoned endurance runners
have built a base over time either just by years of running or by good
training habits. Most of those posters at letsrun.com that really
provide some pointed advice are seasoned and/or elite runners, most
of whom run far faster than 3 hour marathons. These runners essentially
have an aerobic system that is firmly established, and one or two
sessions of speedwork per week will have little or no effect other than
perhaps, at the end of race season. However, I firmly believe that the
runners that really need this type of approach (I believe that
almost anyone can use this
method to improve, just by off-season basebuilding, but now I'm
referring to those with very poor aerobic fitness), many of whom
are in the "fairly new" crowd or have never really built a strong
base (which can be indicated by the inability to run at low heart rates
and the degradation of race performance as the races get longer)
will see little or no progress unless the first period (maybe the first
few periods) they go through it, that they stay strictly low. Do I
know this empirically? Absolutely not. However, if I were to simply
compile all of those inputs from people that said they had no success
with this approach, they either mixed in races or speedwork, they
used a higher heart rate because they thought the recommended one
was too low, or they let their heart rates climb and hills and various
other occasions. As with anything, different things work for different
people, but when you are trying an approach like this, you at least
have to track what you are doing that is not consistent with the
guidelines so that you know where to look if something is not working.
By the way, I believe Daniels recommends including a small percentage
of hill intervals during the basebuilding phase, so there must be
something to it. However, my impression is that Daniels, Pfitzinger,
and many others' training programs are for advanced endurance
runners who already have strong aerobic fitness that is not "fragile."

Now, about you. First of all - your times don't indicate an aerobic
problem at all, so you are an interesting test case. What kind of
improvement might you see? Great question. I certainly understand your concern-
you likely feel that you were already doing very well, making great
progress, so why would you take the chance with this. And I
would certainly agree with that. I could only guess that after
reading some of this stuff, there's some kind of an appealing draw
to you. There's no doubt from your posts that you clearly understand
the methodology at least as well as I do. I can only say that by
doing this, my vo2max, my anaerobic threshold, my pace at low
heart rates, and all of my race times have improved tremendously.
I lost nothing. Am I special? Perhaps I am in that maybe I had
about the worst aerobic conditioning of any "trained" marathon
runner. Perhaps had I not started running marathons just 4
months after starting running from scratch, I might have progressively
built up mileage and race distances, while building endurance along
the way. Perhaps this method is making up for lost years. I can
say this - those who seemed to have the same problems that I did
who have posted their successes all appear to have been very
strict with their following of methods. Lastly, this clearly isn't only
for the slowpokes such as myself - you can't argue with Mark
Allen's amazing results. Now, as far as what you do - given that
you seem to have good aerobic fitness already, weekly tempos
probably won't have an adverse effect. Make your own adjustments
that give you a sense of comfort and see if it works.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-14-2005 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
Here's a new sub-topic for this thread. Do you think that
"lifetime aerobic development" is a valid concept? In other words, if you come from an athletic background, can you establish a good base in your youth (not necessarily through running, but being active in other sports), and then come back more easily when you're older? I think there is some truth to this.

---

I believe there is truth to that. I notice that for several of the good marathon
runners around here who call themselves "new runners," a little probing
brings out the fact that they ran cross-country in high school and perhaps
college for years, ran 40-50 mpw, etc. etc., and I think they do have
some form of "lifetime aerobic development" as you say.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-14-2005 10:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Did you ever do a MAF test before you were injured for 3 months. I am just wondering how much progress you made because of MAF considering you were off a while. Would any type of running made you faster even if you included a tempo run in there once per week. The reason I ask is because Tinman who posts on www.run-insight.com says that one should do tempo work year round and it will not affect aerobic base. He also recommends paces termed Critical Velocity which I won't get into. Tinman seems to be a God on letsrun.com and this particular sight and has helped so many people.He really knows his stuff and has done a ton of research and offers free advice.

I guess I am starting to question if it is wise for me to not be doing a tempo run once per week and if MAF training will help me if I only do 20 miles per week???? I think I will give MAF training 3 more weeks which will put me at around 7 weeks - if I don't notice any improvement, I will probably add a tempo run in per week until Spring. I do like the comfort of running at this pace but I don't want to go backward.

---

When I first did low HR training aerobic base work for a solid 12-14 week block, I saw improvement every 4-6 weeks (includes low mileage recovery weeks of 20-25 mpw every 4th week, the other weeks I ran between 45-63 mpw). Translated into miles, I saw improvement every 170-250 miles. At your current mileage, you probaby will see significant progress every 8-13 weeks. Though it might be more time, since there might be an upward spiral effect from the high mileage I was doing. If you start throwing tempo runs in the mix (what do you mean by tempo runs? Marathon tempo? 15k tempo?), I don't think you'll see much progress towards a marathon, if that is your goal. Not on 20 miles per week. One of the ideas behind this training is that it allows you to build your mileage to higher levels more safely. The more miles you do, the faster your progress.

I'm not sure if you are a beginner, or a longtime runner rebuilding. If you are a beginner, and your goal is to get faster in races, then I suggest that you keep in the lower part of your aerobic zone until your training paces drop. You want to build your legs safely and in your body's time--don't rush it. If you're a long-time runner and you are trying to rebuild your base for whatever reason (injury, plateau, etc.), then I suggest you stay around or below your MAF for at least 12 weeks. Then get to the faster stuff.

This type of training takes patience, and if you have some, and stay the course, it'll pay off big time. Just 6 weeks ago, I was training at 8:20-9:10 on my medium long runs (8-15 miles), 8:20-9:20 on my long runs (16-22). Now, I'm running between 10:20-11:06 per mile depending on the distance. Slow motion--but it's temporary.

--Jimmy

My Running World

posted Dec-15-2005 10:24 AM            

Thanks for the long reply, I appreciate that. I love your quote,
".....worst aerobic conditioning of a trained marathoner...."
Hard to believe that is possible but you seemed to have proved it to a point.

Jimmy,

I have been doing intense aerobic work for 15 years and running the last 10 with a little more seriousness the past 4 miles but never more than 20 miles per week until last year when I maxed out at 28 miles in the Spring preparing for a 10K and a 1/2 marathon as a secondary goal. Last year I PRd at all 3 evens 5K 19:55 10K 41:15 1/2 Marathon 1:33.30 I think all these times seem to be on par and don't indicate a weak aerobic base. I was shooting to break 1:32.00 in the half but my Garmin came in at long (a lot of city streets). I also had goals of getting to 40 minutes in the 10K but it didn't happen for my goal race in June. I started doing interval work in Feb/Mar and felt like I peaked in April/May. I do think speed work (race pace intervals or faster) cannot be maintained year round. But in the past, all I did was 3 - 4 mile 10k effort tempo runs with a a longer run on weekends at a brisk pace. I did very little slow work on my 3 - 4 day per week running plan. My thought was slower training may help because I rarely train slow. I think you have a valid point that with my low miles, it may take 8 or more weeks for progress. I will see where I am at Jan. 1 which will be 7 weeks. My MAF right now is around 8:10 (HR 146). I think I could run a 10K now at around 7 min pace maybe a tad faster. I think that the fact that my MAF HR and 10K race pace is only around 1 min. - 1:15 difference also shows my base is fairly strong. I guess it has come from years of consistent aerobic work outs, certainly not a lot of miles. This is all very interesting to me because I am a numbers/science guy and love experimenting. The experiment continues.........I just wish I could run more miles, but can't because of a toe problem and work, family balance.
 

posted Dec-16-2005 12:26 PM            

Rolling hills makes pacing VERY FRUSTRATING. Just when I get into the groove a hill arises. It is hard enough adjusting to the slower pace and then have to crawl up a hill. Crest the hill and the HR drops because of the down hill. Get back into a regular pace within HR target and here is another hill.

Sheesh, when does it get better?

Began with a 6 mile run planned yesterday. The weather forcast called for a nasty ice storn so I decided to keep going. Got in an 11 miler with mouths full of ice/snow for water

I just figured out how to adjust the slipping belt on my dreadmill. I might get a few runs inside and possibly reduce the frustration.

Karen
 

posted Dec-16-2005 03:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
Not really a question here. Just venting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rolling hills makes pacing VERY FRUSTRATING. Just when I get into the groove a hill arises. It is hard enough adjusting to the slower pace and then have to crawl up a hill. Crest the hill and the HR drops because of the down hill. Get back into a regular pace within HR target and here is another hill.

Sheesh, when does it get better?

Began with a 6 mile run planned yesterday. The weather forcast called for a nasty ice storn so I decided to keep going. Got in an 11 miler with mouths full of ice/snow for water

I just figured out how to adjust the slipping belt on my dreadmill. I might get a few runs inside and possibly reduce the frustration.

Karen

---

Karen...

Sounds like my routes here in NH! I don't think I have a flat spot on any of my routes unless I go run on the old rail trail.

Two years ago when I started on this training, I had to walk every hill..today I cruise up all the hills and speed down the other side, Maffetone speedwork style. Just walk all the hills, stay in your zone and it will all sort out eventually. I actually rarely wear my HR monitor anymore, I can tell where I am most of the time. I will wear it every once in awhile, but find I no longer need it.

Update on the knee...just ran an hour on the treadmill at 1% grade at my high aerobic zone. Knee still feels wierd, but no pain. It's getting stronger. Topped that workout off with a Total Gym workout for 30 minutes, some of which were single leg squats. This was all while watching the weather channel...we're in the middle of a nasty ice storm so you know I'm staying indoors all weekend

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-16-2005 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ultrasteve:
Karen...

Sounds like my routes here in NH! I don't think I have a flat spot on any of my routes unless I go run on the old rail trail.

---

I guess my version of the "old rail trail" is the C & O Canal. The canal is perfect for this kind of running, only problem is it is under about 3 inches of ice right now. Last time I was able to run on it there was about an inch of snow on top. That has now turned to ice so it may be awhile.

Glad to hear your knee is healing. I am well aware of the frustrations with a healing injury. Had a pretty bad stress fracture last year. Took most of the year until I felt it was finally fully healed.

All the best,
Karen
 

posted Dec-16-2005 06:28 PM            

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-16-2005 08:53 PM            

Tomorrow AM is a local "Jingle Bell " run. It is not a race, but rather several loops around a local 5k course allowing runners of all abilities to go various distances ie: 5k, 10k, 15k, etc. You can just continue the loops for longer runs.
Everybody wears bells and santa hats... you get the picture.

Anyway, even though it isn't a race, I know that if I am to run with my running friends I will definitely be over my targetd HR zone. I haven't run with my running group for a long time and would love to join them for this event. Will running in this event have a negative impact on my progress? I have been HR training for a full two weeks now and have been very careful to stay within the proper zone.

If this will set me back, I'm willing to skip the event.
Karen
 

posted Dec-16-2005 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
Hopefully I can get an answer on this question tonight!

Tomorrow AM is a local "Jingle Bell " run. It is not a race, but rather several loops around a local 5k course allowing runners of all abilities to go various distances ie: 5k, 10k, 15k, etc. You can just continue the loops for longer runs.
Everybody wears bells and santa hats... you get the picture.

Anyway, even though it isn't a race, I know that if I am to run with my running friends I will definitely be over my targetd HR zone. I haven't run with my running group for a long time and would love to join them for this event. Will running in this event have a negative impact on my progress? I have been HR training for a full two weeks now and have been very careful to stay within the proper zone.

If this will set me back, I'm willing to skip the event.
Karen

---

unfortunately there's no solid answer to your question. why don't
you just run it and enjoy yourself? even if it has some minor
negative impact, you'll be able to overcome it.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff
 

posted Dec-17-2005 11:00 AM            

About Rail Trail/C&O Canal path. What we do up heeyah in these pahts is to put screws in an old pair of shoes, preferable trail shoes.
Take #8X 1/2 inch hex head screws and place them around the outside of the sole. Usually about 5-7 in the front and the same in the back. This takes ice and makes it more runnable. I can actually go and run trails up here even after they have been buried under 5 feet of snow.

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-17-2005 12:25 PM         

I've started out a low HR program about a week or so ago and so far I am pleased with it. No urgent questions. I did the calculations to find the recommended HR, and my impression was that this is a very 'flaky' area. To start with the factors to add or subract are very crude - add or subtract a whole 5 beats here and there. + or - 5 beats is a hell of a lot. So if there is a magical sweet spot for training, then the chances of the calculation landing you there are slim. So I have taken the calculation with a general guide and tried to find a grouve near by. This happens to be 75% max. This pace was a shocker at first as it felt very slow, however, maintaining this HR I seem to be able to run for ever. It was no problem to extend my long run by 45 mins. If I run at the same intensity I get very little HR drift on a 10 mile run - maybe one or two beats. So I am hoping that this means I am doing low HR training. Any comments on this appreciated, even "go and read the books", which I have not done.

-brian
 

posted Dec-17-2005 12:40 PM            

This run was very low key (at least as far as the pace was concerned), and I managed to keep a good portion of it in a good HR zone. I did view my HR monitor summary and saw a max HR of 222. I believe I may have picked up somebody's signal somewhere.

Karen
 

posted Dec-17-2005 01:29 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:

...so if I run at the same intensity I get very little HR drift on a 10 mile run - maybe one or two beats.

---

.... I may be splitting hairs here, but to me intensity equates directly to HR, basically the same metric. I assume you mean pace rather than intensity.
 

posted Dec-17-2005 01:51 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Did my second MAF test yesterday on the treadmill at 0% incline. My first MAF test, I averaged HR 1 bpm over my MAF of 141 with a 142. This time I tried to average 1 bpm under (140), keeping 141 as the top number that I would let myself see, if I saw 142 or higher for longer than a blip, I'd adjust the speed down. Conversely if I saw readings below 137-138 for longer than a blip, I'd adjust the speed upwards. I also went 5 miles this time, instead of 4.

_________________________________________
MAF test #1 Nov. 29th, 2005 (ran marathon on Nov 20th)
treadmill at 0% incline temp=64 deg.

Mile/time/ ave hR/%decay to mile 1/ %decay to preceding mile
1) 9:25 142
2) 9:42 142 3.01%
3) 10:04 142 6.9% (3.78% from mile 2)
4) 10:33 142 12.03% (4.8% from mile 3)

Total decay=12.03%
Ave. rate of decay: 4.01%
Ave. speed=9:56
__________________________________________
MAF TEST #2 December 12th, 2005
treadmill at 0% incline temp=64 deg.

Mile/time/ ave hR/%decay to mile 1/ %decay to preceding mile
1) 9:38 140 ----
2) 9:52 140 %2.42%
3) 10:15 140 %6.40% (3.89% from mile 2)
4) 10:31 140 %9.16 (2.6% from mile 3)
5) 10:53 140 %12.98 (3.49% from mile 4)

Total decay=%12.98
Ave. rate of decay: 3.25%
Ave speed: 10:14
____________________________________________

I think the higher % of slowing in my first MAF test reflects the marathon still being in my legs, and perhaps from running over my MAF of 141. Especialy the slowing between the 3rd and 4th miles.

Should I be looking at any other data? Does anyone see anything I'm not seeing (in the data, not hallucination--wise)?

Thanks.

--Jimmy

My Running World

---

HOLY COW, and I thought I was too caught up in the numbers....... Just kidding, I actually appreciate the different looks at trying to measure this stuff. As soon as I get a minute, I've been wanting to share some tracking numbers of my own for feedback on my personal MAF experience, now midway into week #5 (sneak preview: no discernable "progress" and very frustrated). But here's the thought your mention of difference in results from 140 and 141 bpm brings to mind....... As inexact as the MAF formula is, I find it hard to start making connections on differing results garnered from differences of 1 bpm. Thoughts?
 

posted Dec-17-2005 02:03 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
.... I may be splitting hairs here, but to me intensity equates directly to HR, basically the same metric. I assume you mean pace rather than intensity.

---

I did mean intensity. Because of cardiac drift HR goes up over time for the same intensity. At 80% max, mine would probably go up 4- 5 beats over a one hour run (so I would end up at, say, 83%). Conversely, I could slow down at the end of the run to maintain a level heart rate. I am saying that at 75% max, the drift is a lot less - about half.
 

posted Dec-17-2005 04:58 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
I did mean intensity. Because of cardiac drift HR goes up over time for the same intensity. At 80% max, mine would probably go up 4- 5 beats over a one hour run (so I would end up at, say, 83%). Conversely, I could slow down at the end of the run to maintain a level heart rate. I am saying that at 75% max, the drift is a lot less - about half.

---

still seems to me you're using the term intensity interchangeably with pace. If you maintain a consistent pace, HR will escalate with time. Conversely, to maintain a consistent HR, you will need to decelerate pace over time. I think we're voicing the same concept, I just think the term intensity is directly measured as HR, or exertion. Pace is the product, and variable.
 

posted Dec-19-2005 07:04 AM            

------------------

 

posted Dec-19-2005 08:14 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
I just think the term intensity is directly measured as HR, or exertion. Pace is the product, and variable.

---

I don't think so. HR closely varies with effort, but is not a consitent measure of it. That's the essence of cardiac drift in my understanding.

posted Dec-19-2005 09:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don203:
Not sure if I should post this here or over in the Med Tent. Situation: I wanted to try Maffetone this winter to build a good base for next year. I was running 20-30 MPW. My MAF is 128. Just as I started, I was dagnosed with an inoperable, malignant brain tumor. I just finished the Chemo treatments and wrap up radiation next week. With all the meds, etc. my HR is higher than normal when I do anything - a good 20 beats. An example: I will walk up a gentle hill and my HR will be 134, above MAF. I have started to push the MAF number, and now just walk when I hit 139, and resume running at 128. Any advice?
Thanks.

---

Don...

Maffetone says in his book to balance out the stresses. You take all of your stresses and list them because you only have so much energy for all of the stesses in our lives.
Typically this would be work, school, home life, running, etc. You have added an additional stress and need to focus on healing. I think Maffetone fits perfectly with what you are trying to accomplish while undergoing your treatment. You really should (especially at this time) stay in your zone. Rest and recovery are more important than any gains you can make in running, so stay in your zone, even if that means walking. FWIW, I walk a lot on the treadmill.

Best of luck with your recovery, I think we'll all agree that you came to the right discussion,

------------------
Steve
My User Profile

My Photo Page
 

posted Dec-19-2005 09:37 AM            

Just wondering what some of you think about this. Is there an optimum?

 

posted Dec-19-2005 09:53 AM            

------------------
Me, my log, and my website
 

posted Dec-19-2005 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by B50:
I am curious about the relationship between MPW and progress when using the MAF program. At this "easy" pace I feel I could run many more miles than I have been but have been holding back.

Just wondering what some of you think about this. Is there an optimum?

---

I am on my third week of low HR training so I am by no means the expert here; however,I have found that I am easily increasing my mileage. I was at a point where I was about to increase my mileage anyway,by adding another day of running. I added the extra day of running and also threw in a few additional miles on other runs. Though I went over the 10% rule, the easy miles make it quite comfortable.

John Parkers book "Heart Rate Training for Idioits" shows several examples of significant mileage increase. All of the examples are based on most of the miles in the "easy" zone. He does say that to try the same increase in miles while running "hard" would not be advisable.

I have noticed that while my muscles do not feel stressed, I do feel a general fatigue that is easily taken care of with some additional sleep.

Hope this helps,
Karen
 

posted Dec-19-2005 11:12 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
I added the extra day of running and also threw in a few additional miles on other runs. Though I went over the 10% rule, the easy miles make it quite comfortable.

---

posted Dec-19-2005 11:31 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don203:
Not sure if I should post this here or over in the Med Tent. Situation: I wanted to try Maffetone this winter to build a good base for next year. I was running 20-30 MPW. My MAF is 128. Just as I started, I was dagnosed with an inoperable, malignant brain tumor. I just finished the Chemo treatments and wrap up radiation next week. With all the meds, etc. my HR is higher than normal when I do anything - a good 20 beats. An example: I will walk up a gentle hill and my HR will be 134, above MAF. I have started to push the MAF number, and now just walk when I hit 139, and resume running at 128. Any advice?
Thanks.

---

Don, my mother in law passed away over the summer from GBM. Good luck with your recovery - it's truly amazing that you can run! My advice would be a.)check with your doctor! and b.) have fun with your running, and not obsess too much about the HRM. I don't think that going over the MAF number for short periods of time will affect you. As you regain your fitness, it will (hopefully) be easier to stay below MAF, and at that point you should follow the guidelines more strictly. There are several posts buried in this thread where people started at a higher MAF number so they would be able to run instead of walk.